In recent work Mary Kate McGowan presents an account of oppressive speech inspired by David Lewis's analysis of conversational kinematics. Speech can effect identity-based oppression, she argues, by altering 'the conversational score', which is to say, roughly, that it can introduce presuppositions and expectations into a conversation, and thus determine what sort of subsequent conversational 'moves' are apt, correct, felicitous, etc., in a manner that oppresses members of a certain group (e.g. because the suppositions and expectations derogate (...) or demean members of that group). In keeping with the Lewisian picture, McGowan stresses the asymmetric pliability of conversational scores. She argues that it is easier to introduce (for example) sexist presuppositions and expectations into a conversation than it is to remove them. Responding to a sexist remark, she thus suggests, is like trying to "unring a bell". I begin by situating McGowan's work in the wider literature on speech and social hierarchy, and explaining how her account of oppressive speech improves upon the work of others in its explication of the relationship between individuals' verbal conduct and structurally oppressive social arrangements. I then propose an explanation and supportive elaboration of McGowan's claims about the asymmetric pliability of conversations involving identity-oppressive speech. Rather than regarding such asymmetry as a sui generis phenomenon, I show how we can understand it as a consequence of a more general asymmetry between making things salient and un-salient in speech, and I show how this asymmetry also operates in various cases that interested Lewis. (shrink)

Are government restrictions on hate speech consistent with the priority of liberty? This relatively narrow policy question will serve as the starting point for a wider discussion of the use and abuse of nonideal theory in contemporary political philosophy, especially as practiced on the academic left. I begin by showing that hate speech (understood as group libel) can undermine fair equality of opportunity for historically-oppressed groups but that the priority of liberty seems to forbid its restriction. This tension (...) between free speech and equal opportunity creates a dilemma for liberal egalitarians. Nonideal theory apparently offers an escape from this dilemma, but after examining three versions of such an escape strategy, I conclude that none is possible: liberal egalitarians are indeed forced to choose between liberty and equality in this case and others. I finish the paper by examining its implications for other policy arenas, including markets in transplantable human organs and women’s reproductive services. (shrink)

This dissertation fits within the literature on subordinating speech and aims to demonstrate that how language subordinates is more complex than has been described by most philosophers. I argue that the harms that subordinating speech inflicts on its targets (chapter one), the type of authority that is exercised by subordinating speakers (chapters two and three), and the expansive variety of subordinating speech acts themselves (chapter three) are all under-developed subjects in need of further refinement—and, in some cases, (...) large paradigm shifts. I also examine cases that have yet to be adequately addressed by philosophers working on this topic, like the explosion of abusive speech online (chapter four) or the distinctive speech acts of protest groups (chapter five). I argue that by considering these alongside the ‘paradigm’ cases of subordinating speech that inform most models, we are better able to capture the lived realities of this phenomena, as described by members of groups targeted by such speech. I develop a novel account of speaker authority to explain the variety of pragmatic effects subordinating speech generates. Instead of seeing this authority as reducible to either a formal position or a merely local, linguistic phenomenon, I argue for a conception of speaker authority that is a richly contextual social fact, distributed unevenly among members of different social groups. I also develop an account of collective authority that explains how a group of speakers can join together to subordinate in a way that no individual speaker is capable of doing. This account, I argue, is better able to explain the social reality of subordinating speech than individualist models. Overall, I show how a more fine-grained account of subordinating speaker authority gives us a more accurate picture of the different subordinating speech acts available to different speakers, along with how these may harm their targets. (shrink)

The prevailing view among contemporary analytic philosophers seems to be that, as philosophers, we primarily issue assertions. Following certain suggestions from the work of Rudolf Carnap and Sally Haslanger, I argue that the non-assertoric speech act of stipulation plays a key role in philosophical inquiry. I give a detailed account of the pragmatic structure of stipulations and argue that they are best analyzed as generating a shared inferential entitlement for speaker and audience, a license to censure those who give (...) uptake to the stipulation but do not abide by this entitlement, and as justified on the basis of the speaker and audience's shared ends. In presenting this account, I develop a novel taxonomy for making sense of criticisms of speech act performances generally and clarify the notions of successful speech act performance and uptake. To demonstrate the fruitfulness of this view of stipulation for recasting and advancing philosophical disputes, I apply my account to two case studies – the first concerns Iris Marion Young's analysis of the concept of oppression and the second involves Saul Kripke's and Hilary Putnam's accounts of the concept of reference. (shrink)

A lot of subordinating speech has moved online, which raises several questions for philosophers. Can current accounts of oppressive speech adequately capture digital hate? How does the anonymity of online harassers contribute to the force of their speech? This paper examines online abuse and argues that standard accounts of licensing and accommodation are not up to the task of explaining the authority of online hate speech, as speaker authority often depends on the community in more (...) ways than these accounts suggests. Instead I argue that online abusive speech is best understood as collective subordinating speech acts, as their authority is drawn from an ad hoc collective. I argue that anonymity and shared language offer online abusers a path to a type of group-authority that explains the harm their speech is capable of. I close by suggesting that similar considerations are in play for IRL subordinating speech, and that online abuse helps to reveal key features of subordinating speech across mediums that are under-emphasized in the existing literature. (shrink)

In recent years, philosophers have begun to uncover the role played by verbal conduct in generating oppressive social structures. I examine the oppressive illocutionary uses, and perlocutionary effects, of expressives: speech acts that are not truth-apt, merely expressing attitudes, such as desires, preferences, and emotions. Focusing on expressions of disgust in conversation, I argue for two claims: that expressions of disgust can activate in the local, conversational context the oppressive power of the underlying structures of oppression; (...) that conversational expressions of disgust can, via the pragmatic process of presupposition accommodation, contribute to morally problematic cases of disgust contagion. (shrink)

Through the lens of feminist speech act theory, this paper argues that artificial intelligence romance systems objectify and subordinate nonvirtual women. AI romance systems treat their users as consumers, offering them relational invulnerability and control over their (usually feminized) digital romantic partner. This paper argues that, though the output of AI chatbots may not generally constitute speech, the framework offered by an AI romance system communicates an unjust perspective on intimate relationships. Through normalizing controlling one’s intimate partner, these (...) systems operate as speakers that rank women as non-player characters and license their oppression, which is unjust even in the absence of empirical harms. Understanding AI romance systems as speakers has implications for policymakers. First, this account helps close the so-called responsibility gap in the operation of an AI system. Second, it places these systems under the purview of institutions’ policies regarding hate speech, suggesting one avenue for arguing that these systems may violate extant policies. Finally, it provides support for the pursuit of empirical research into AI romance systems’ effects on users. (shrink)

Derogatory terms (racist, sexist, ethnic epithets) have long played various roles and achieved diverse ends in works of art. Focusing on basic aspects of an aesthetic object or work, this article examines the interpretive relation between point of view and content, asking how aesthetic contextualization shapes the impact of such terms. Can context, particularly aesthetic contexts, detach the derogatory force from powerful epithets and racist and sexist images? What would it be about aesthetic contexts that would make this possible? The (...) article puts into aesthetic contexts both Absolutist and Reclaimer views about the power of derogatory terms, applying an inferential role semantics, developed for language, to both words and images. The Reclaimer’s position, that derogation is a matter of pragmatics, of use, emphasizes the context-sensitivity of the term, that is matters who says it, to whom, when, where, and why. Understanding derogatory terms used as hate speech helps to make this position clear. The Absolutist’s position, that no contextual variations can detach the derogation from these deeply derogatory terms, is developed here through attention to subordinating images in pornography. The article argues that art may be able to achieve the deviant interpretations that the Reclaimer needs to undermine the derogations while maintaining sensitivity and awareness of the history of oppression. (shrink)

Much recent work in feminist philosophy of language and epistemology has focused on how power constrains speech and testimony. This paper aims to highlight the flip side of silencing by looking at the productive power of sexist ideology in the context of the Italian gender-based violence crime trial. Building on José Medina’s performative account of epistemic injustice (2013; 2021), I argue that when sexist conceptual resources are used by the judge as an epistemic lens, they do ideological work by (...) setting unfair constraints on the communicative and epistemic agency of the complainant in the obtaining of her testimony. Moreover, I argue that the very same hermeneutical insensitivities and distorting concepts that shape patterns of silence can give rise to forms of agential testimonial injustice (Lackey 2023) in which the only witness statements believed by the Court are those elicited through oppressive questions that obscure, deny, or minimize the reported violence, constituting a form of extracted speech (McKinney 2016). In practical terms, this paper intends to offer a possible theoretical tool to detect and counteract those unjust discursive practices that prevent an unbiased constitution of testimonial evidence. (shrink)

This paper examines the relationship between violence and the domination of speech in Spinoza’s political thought. Spinoza describes the cost of such violence to the State, to the collective epistemic resources, and to the members of the polity that domination aims to script and silence. Spinoza shows how obedience to a dominating power requires pretense and deception. The pressure to pretend is the linchpin of an account of how oppression severely degrades the conditions for meaningful communication, and thus the (...) possibilities for thinking and acting in common. Because it belongs to human nature to desire to share our thoughts with others, Spinoza believes that most people experience efforts to control our communication to be acutely intolerable. As a result, such unbearable violence threatens the political order that deploys it. I conclude with some speculative remarks about why, in the Theological-Political Treatise, Spinoza consistently deploys the superlative form of the adjective violentus in reference to the domination of thought and speech rather than to other modes of political violence. (shrink)

McGowan argues that everyday verbal bigotry makes a key contribution to the harms of discriminatory inequality, via a mechanism that she calls sneaky norm enactment. Part of her account involves showing that the characteristic of conversational interaction that facilitates sneaky norm enactment is in fact a generic one, which obtains in a wide range of activities, namely, the property of having conventions of appropriateness. I argue that her account will be better-able to show that everyday verbal bigotry is a key (...) factor in social inequality if it tries to isolate a more specific property of conversation as the thing that facilitates sneaky norm enactment. (shrink)

Philosophers often treat racist and sexist slurs as a special sort of puzzle. What is the difference between a slur and its correlates? In attempting to answer this question, a second distinction has been overlooked: that between slurs and insults. What makes a term count as a slur? This is not an unnecessary taxonomical question as long as ableist terms such as ‘moron’ are dismissed as mere insults. Attempts to resolve the insult/slur distinction by considering the communicative content of slurs (...) are not promising. A better solution is offered by speech act theory, and this paper develops a novel way to describe ordinary slurring utterances as oppressive speech acts. This can both explain the difference between slurs and insults, and challenge the dismissal of ableist terms. (shrink)

Public arguments can be good or bad not only as a matter of logic, but also in the sense that speakers can _do_ good or bad things with arguments. For example, hate speakers use public arguments to contribute to the subordination of their targets. But how can ordinary speakers acquire the authority to perform subordinating speech acts? This is the ‘Authority Problem’. This paper defends a solution inspired by McGowan’s (Australas J Philos 87:389–407, 2009) analysis of oppressive (...) class='Hi'>speech, including against concerns raised by McGowan (Just words: On speech and hidden harm, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2019) herself. A _deflated_ kind of authority can be gained from the hate speaker’s standing in a norm-governed ‘activity of oppression’. We should be wary about engaging with such speakers in public argument. Even if we counter their arguments, we may still elevate their standing within that activity and so enable them to perform more pernicious speech acts than was previously possible. (shrink)

Silencing is usually explained in terms of conventionalism about the nature of speech acts. More recently, theorists have tried to develop intentionalist theories of the phenomenon. I argue, however, that if intentionalists are to accommodate the conventionalists' main insight, namely that silencing can be so extreme as to render certain types of speech act completely unavailable to victims, they must take two assumptions on board. First, it must be possible that speakers' communicative intentions are opaque to the speakers (...) themselves. Secondly, it needs to be assumed that structural oppression can have hidden psychological effects on its victims. Since both assumptions can be motivated independently, I argue that silencing can be fully understood without appealing to linguistic conventions. (shrink)

Hunger strikes are commonly repressed in prison and seen as disruptive, coercive, and violent. Hunger strikers and their advocates insist that incarcerated persons have a right to hunger strike, which protects them against repression and force-feeding. Physicians and medical ethicists generally ground this right in the right to refuse medical treatment; lawyers and legal scholars derive it from incarcerated persons’ free speech rights. Neither account adequately grounds the right to hunger strike because both misrepresent the hunger strike as noncoercive (...) and nonviolent. I articulate an alternative, dual account of the right to hunger strike. On the remedial argument, the right to hunger strike should be legally protected as a right to petition for redress, in light of incarcerated people’s structural vulnerability to abuse and given inadequate grievance mechanisms. The constructive argument derives the right to hunger strike from the right to resist oppression and stresses the normative permissibility of the use of coercive tactics to defend one’s liberty interests in the face of carceral oppression. -/- . (shrink)

In this article I analyse two complaints of white vilification, which are increasingly occurring in Australia. I argue that, though the complainants (and white people generally) are not harmed by such racialized speech, the complainants in fact harm Australians of colour through these utterances. These complaints can both cause and constitute at least two forms of epistemic injustice (willful hermeneutical ignorance and comparative credibility excess). Further, I argue that the complaints are grounded in a dual misrecognition: the complainants misrecognize (...) themselves in their own privileged racial specificity, and they misrecognize others in their own marginal racial specificity. Such misrecognition preserves the cultural imperialism of Australia’s dominant social imaginary—a means of oppression that perpetuates epistemic insensitivity.Bringing this dual misrecognition to light best captures the indignity that is suffered by the victims of the aforementioned epistemic injustices. I argue that it is only when we truly recognize difference in its own terms, shifting the dominant social imaginary, that “mainstream Australians”can do their part in bringing about a just society. (shrink)

Reclamation is the phenomenon of an oppressed group repurposing language to its own ends. A case study is reclamation of slur words. Popa-Wyatt and Wyatt (2018) argued that a slurring utterance is a speech act which performs a discourse role assignment. It assigns a subordinate role to the target, while the speaker assumes a dominant role. This pair of role assignments is used to oppress the target. Here I focus on how reclamation works and under what conditions its benefits (...) can stabilise. I start by reviewing the data and describing preconditions and motivations for reclamation. Can reclamation be explained in the same basic framework as regular slurring utterances? I argue that it can. I also identify some features that must be a prediction of any theory of reclamation. I conclude that reclamation is an instance of a much broader class of acts we do with words to change the distribution of power: it begets power, but it also requires it. (shrink)

Testimony is of epistemic and practical significance. It is of epistemic significance because majority of what we know and believe comes from being told. It is of practical significance because our agency can be undermined, bypassed, or overridden owing to systemic prejudices sustained by oppressive social or cultural practices and subsequently our routes to knowledge are either hindered or distorted. Things get more complicated when we introduce and examine how groups and other collectives testify and are recipients of testimony. (...) For instance, group speakers are typically said to represent and reflect the view of the group they are speaking on behalf of. But sometimes because of these oppressive practices, a group speaker’s assertion may deprive or impair its members’ ability to perform certain actions through speech. This dissertation examines the intersection between testimony, collective phenomena, and epistemic harms. One aim is to argue for a view on the nature of testimony that can accommodate various ways collectives testify and are recipients of testimony. In particular, I argue and present a view of testimony as a norm-governed joint activity involving individual or collective participants that commit themselves to a common aim of collaboration. Another aim is to present an epistemology of testimony that tracks our ordinary testimonial practices. In this regard, I argue for a norm view where we have reason to believe what we’re told because of the rules or norms that govern our communicative exchanges. A final aim is to explore the mechanism by which collective speech ensues in an epistemic harm driven by social identity prejudices. I argue for a form of silencing that is distinctive of groups insofar as the silencing occurs because of group dynamics. I call the mechanism underlying this form of silencing “representational impairment”. This dissertation, I hope, will motivate and inspire others to pursue philosophical projects at these intersections and in this spirit, I end by offering suggestions on areas of further development and future direction. (shrink)

In this paper, I develop an account of Frederick Douglass’s use of declaration as an emancipatory mode of political action. An act of declaration compels an audience to acknowledge the declarer as possessing a type of normative standing (e.g. personhood or citizenship). Douglass, through acts of declaration like his Fifth of July speech and fight with the ‘slavebreaker’ Covey, compels American audiences to acknowledge him as a fellow citizen by forcefully enacting a commitment to resist tyranny and oppression. The (...) distinctive emancipatory potential of declaration is grounded in its political epistemology of acknowledgment, on which political actors understand other persons as members of a shared community through the ways in which they comport themselves in relation to one another. Declaration makes political communities more inclusive not only by changing who we understand as fellow members, but how we understand them as such. (shrink)

In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote that the discovery of “representative democracy has rendered useless almost everything written before on the structure of government; and in great measure, relieves our regret, if the political writing of Aristotle, or of any other ancient, have been lost, or are unfaithfully rendered or explained to us” (quoted in Saxonhouse, p. 13). No doubt there are historical reasons to study classical Greece, but between us and them lies not only the discovery of representative democracy, but (...) also the discoveries of Christianity, economics, national and trans-national political institutions, universal human rights, and modern science. What can modern political theory learn from the lessons of old books? Three recent volumes wrestle with this question. Confronting Tyranny asks what we can learn about modern oppressive institutions from their ancient ancestors. In Plato’s Fable, Joshua Mitchell claims that Plato’s Republic offers an account of ethical “imitation” superior to those offered by modern liberalism. In Free Speech and Democracy in Ancient Athens, Arlene Saxonhouse argues that free speech in antiquity differs from our rights-based understanding of the practice, and yet it shed light on the presuppositions of modern freedoms. (shrink)

Shedding light on the political power and oppressive potential of language, theories of illocutionary silencing and discursive injustice show how gender, class and race can shape the pragmatics of speech, limiting in some circumstances the speaker’s ability to do things with her words. This article takes a close look at discursive injustice in trials for gender-based violence in connection with the phenomenon of misogyny. It argues that in the courtroom the testimony of the complainant is sometimes silenced by (...) a sexist ideology used in service of misogynistic ends. In particular, it argues that sexist social meanings can sometimes be enacted by the judge and accommodated by prosecutors, figuring as a component of the score in the language game of the trial and thus 1) determining what counts as sexual violence and 2) preventing complainants from making the moves they intend to make. (shrink)

In cases where structural oppression conditions the broader public sphere, the democratic ideal of a receptive public may be threatened by at least two possible outcomes which appear to undermine its stated goal of increasing understanding of counterhegemonic ideas amongst mainstream, oppressive groups. Either (a) counterhegemonic ideas are defanged to make them sufficiently palatable to a new audience, or (b) counterhegemonic ideas are taken up intact, and as a result the extant networks of publics which depend on oppressive (...) structures and hierarchies will be destroyed. As we will argue, in certain cases of colonialism such as the Straits Philosophical Society in colonial Singapore, the conditions which receptive publics are supposed to ameliorate: (i) the social costs of speech, (ii) inequality of epistemic labour, and (iii) the antagonism between groups, are not only an irreducible feature of counterhegemonic efforts, but are in fact increased in the attempt to maintain receptive publics. However, this may be more a feature than a bug: receptive publics need not be seen only as communicative intermediaries for oppressed groups, but as a possible dialectical step towards new modes of socio-material life. (shrink)

Slurring is a kind of hate speech that has various effects. Notable among these is variable offence. Slurs vary in offence across words, uses, and the reactions of audience members. Patterns of offence aren’t adequately explained by current theories. We propose an explanation based on the unjust power imbalance that a slur seeks to achieve. Our starting observation is that in discourse participants take on discourse roles. These are typically inherited from social roles, but only exist during a discourse. (...) A slurring act is a speech-act that alters the discourse roles of the target and speaker. By assigning discourse roles the speaker unjustly changes the power balance in the dialogue. This has a variety of effects on the target and audience. We show how these notions explain all three types of offence variation. We also briefly sketch how a role and power theory can help explain silencing and appropriation. Explanatory power lies in the fact that offence is correlated with the perceived unjustness of the power imbalance created. (shrink)

Stereotypes are commonly alleged to be false or inaccurate views of groups. For shorthand, I call this the falsity hypothesis. The falsity hypothesis is widespread and is often one of the first reasons people cite when they explain why we shouldn’t use stereotypic views in cognition, reasoning, or speech. In this essay, I argue against the falsity hypothesis on both empirical and ameliorative grounds. In its place, I sketch a more promising view of stereotypes—which avoids the falsity hypothesis—that joins (...) my earlier work on stereotypes in individual psychology with the work of Patricia Hill Collins on cultural stereotypes. According to this two-part hybrid theory, stereotypes are controlling images or ideas that enjoy both a psychological and cultural existence, which serve a regulative social function. (shrink)

Kimberlé Crenshaw arrived at her famous phrase “intersectionality” by carefully thinking through speeches and writings given to us by early Black feminists, such as like Sojourner Truth and Anna J. Cooper. In this paper, I expand on this groundbreaking work in two somewhat surprising ways. First, I bring the ideas of these early Black feminists together with important, related proposals from W.E.B. Du Bois, Karl Marx, Hannah Arendt, and Simone de Beauvoir. Second, I relate these works to central ideas in (...) Kant’s practical philosophy in an effort to develop a Kantian theory of intersectionality. In addition to grasping the distinctive, destructive directions of oppressive forces aimed at women, the poor, and minorities, I seek to understand better the new, violently destructive elements found in European modernity, as evidenced both in European colonialization as well as the Holocaust. -/- This book is published under the OA CC-BY 4.0 license. (shrink)

Born to secular Jewish parents and raised in Camden, New Jersey, Andrea Dworkin became a radical second-wave feminist. By Dworkin’s own account, her work is informed by a series of negative personal experiences, including sexual assault at age nine, again by doctors at the Women's House of Detention in New York in 1965, work as a prostitute, and marriage to a battering husband whom she left in 1971. While Dworkin self-identified as a lesbian, since 1974 she lived with a gay (...) male partner, writer John Stoltenberg, whom she married in 1998. Understandably, the main theme of Dworkin's work is male violence against women. This violence is a defining feature of our male-supremacist culture, in which rape, prostitution, and pornography are inevitable expressions of gender norms. Dworkin's writings are primarily aimed at social change rather than intellectualizing. She describes her first book as "a political action where revolution is the goal". What one finds in her writings is not so much philosophical theorizing as calls to action. Thus it is difficult to summarize the abstract theory to which she is committed and from which she draws arguments against the sexism she finds in our culture. What is clear is her desire to eliminate binary concepts of gender and their oppressive effects. In particular, Dworkin urges the destruction of a female gender role that involves masochism, self-hatred, and passivity. She sees male supremacy constructed and reinforced in our culture through the sexist structuring of public institutions and private interactions, locating three crucial foci of male supremacy in action: pornography, sexual intercourse, and rape. These are her central concerns. Her work includes seven monographs, three collections of essays and speeches, a memoir, two novels, and a book of short stories, all of which explore these themes. (shrink)

On ground shared by environmental hermeneutics, critical social theory, and environmentally minded feminism, this article attempts to conciliate between the nearly antithetical ethical viewpoints of environmental philosophers David Abram and Steven Vogel. It will demonstrate first that Abram’s linguistic arguments for extending ethical considerability to nonhuman nature succumb to two of Vogel’s debilitating critiques, which it labels the social constructivist critique and the discourse ethics critique, and secondly that Abram fails to guard against the problem of human-human oppression. The article (...) also points out, on the other hand, that while Vogel evades the problem of human-human oppression, his view fails to protect against the problem of dangerous anthropocentrism. Operating within the boundaries that Vogel establishes, it will seek to avoid the pitfalls of Abram’s view, to address the underlying ideology that leads to both types of oppression, and to eliminate the problem of dangerous anthropocentrism. To do so it draws upon the arguments of Trish Glazebrook, contending that Abram’s appeals to the “speech” of nature can be more effectively conceptualized as erotic appeals, and that engaging in this call-and-response eros promotes the development of virtues that undermine our current ideology and extend to both the human and the nonhuman. (shrink)

In this paper, we take up an old issue that of pragmemes, broached by Mey and further explored by Capone. It is not easy to define pragmemes and distinguish them sufficiently from speech acts (units of language use broached by Austin and Searle) or from Wittgensteinian language games or from macro speech acts (see van Dijk on macrostructures) or from Goffman’s scripts. The best idea we could develop about pragmemes is that they instantiate the triple articulation of language, (...) proposed by Jock Wong; being essentially composed of phonological-syntactic units, that have a certain content relative to a social situation and to a certain culture, pragmemes express a certain function (or illocutionary force), like, e.g., modifying society or some aspect of it. They are part of a chapter that can be called either “societal pragmatics” or “emancipatory pragmatics,” to use the words by Mey. In fact, knowledge of how language is used to diminish the rights of people and to propagate the “status quo” may be instrumental to give rights and power to ordinary human beings who are oppressed by political and economical structures. -/- . (shrink)

This text examines recent illiberal trends in traditionally liberal institutions. Specifically, it critiques radical “anti-racism” approaches based on critical race theory (CRT) and the ideas of academics such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo. It also focuses on Unitarian Universalism, a historically liberal church whose national leadership has adopted an extreme version of critical race theory. -/- Racial and other inequities are problems in all societies and all of human history, and there are no simple, easy or objectively correct (...) solutions. While critical race theory (CRT) offers important insights on racism and racial disparities, I believe in liberalism, freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas, things that extreme CRT adherents, Kendi and DiAngelo oppose. -/- Freedom of speech and expression and the free exchange of ideas support diversity, multiculturalism and marginalized groups. Illiberalism, dogmatism and authoritarianism are oppressive of all groups, minority and majority, and should be rejected wherever they appear. (shrink)

While much has been said about what ought to be done about the statues and monuments of racist, colonial, and oppressive figures, a significantly undertheorised aspect of the debate is the aesthetics of commemorations. I believe that this philosophical oversight is rather unfortunate. I contend that taking the aesthetic value of commemorations seriously can help us a) better understand how and the extent to which objectionable commemorations are objectionable, b) properly formulate responses to aesthetic defences of objectionable commemorations, and (...) c) help us explore aesthetic solutions—for example, artistic interventions as counterspeech—to objectionable commemorations. Here, I propose that the aesthetic value of objectionable commemorations can amplify the force of the objectionable messages conveyed, and the moral disvalue of objectionable commemorations can hinder our appreciation of their aesthetic value. These two considerations shall help us answer the practical question of what to do about objectionable commemorations of apparently good aesthetic value. Both, I shall argue, give us further reason to remove, replace, recontextualise, or even vandalise objectionable commemorations. Sometimes we need to save the art from its own immorality to best respect its aesthetic value. (shrink)

Austin's theory of performatives has recently inspired much literature on political correctness, based on the idea that they can be essential for the individuals' identity construction, but also for oppression and offence. In this paper I intend to analyze the power but also the limitations of performatives: we should refrain from attributing them magical efficacy, insofar as their power is actually constrained by objective conditions. This invites a revision of post-modern theories according to which any speech creates its own (...) «regime of truth», without any chance for an objective analysis of ideology. (shrink)

Blind Obedience: A Double-Edged Sword -/- Introduction -/- Blind obedience refers to unquestioning compliance with authority, where individuals follow orders or rules without critical thinking or moral evaluation. Throughout history, blind obedience has led to both progress and disaster. While obedience is necessary for maintaining order in societies, institutions, and organizations, blindly following authority without questioning its ethical implications can result in tragic consequences. -/- This essay explores the nature of blind obedience, its psychological roots, historical examples, its presence in (...) modern society, and the importance of critical thinking in preventing its dangers. By examining these aspects, we can better understand the balance between necessary obedience and the responsibility to challenge unethical commands. -/- The Psychology of Blind Obedience -/- Human beings are naturally inclined to obey authority. From childhood, people are taught to respect parents, teachers, and leaders, which helps maintain societal order. However, this conditioning can also suppress independent thought and personal moral judgment. -/- One of the most well-known psychological studies on obedience is Stanley Milgram’s experiment (1961). In this study, participants were instructed by an authority figure (a scientist) to administer electric shocks to another person (who was actually an actor and not harmed). Even as the “victim” screamed in pain, many participants continued delivering shocks simply because they were told to do so. The study demonstrated how ordinary individuals could commit harmful acts when instructed by an authority figure, proving that blind obedience is a powerful force that can override personal morality. -/- Another significant study is the Stanford Prison Experiment (1971), conducted by Philip Zimbardo. Participants were randomly assigned roles as either guards or prisoners in a simulated prison. The ”guards” quickly became abusive, using psychological and physical intimidation, while the “prisoners” became submissive. The experiment had to be stopped early due to the extreme behavior of the participants, showing how blind obedience to authority and roles can lead to cruelty and loss of moral reasoning. -/- Historical Examples of Blind Obedience -/- 1. Nazi Germany and the Holocaust -/- One of the most horrific examples of blind obedience occurred during World War II. Under Adolf Hitler’s rule, millions of ordinary citizens and soldiers followed orders that led to the mass genocide of Jews and other targeted groups. High-ranking officials like Adolf Eichmann, who played a major role in organizing the Holocaust, later defended their actions by claiming they were simply “following orders.” The Nuremberg Trials rejected this defense, emphasizing that individuals are responsible for their actions, even when acting under authority. -/- 2. The My Lai Massacre (Vietnam War, 1968) -/- During the Vietnam War, American soldiers carried out the My Lai Massacre, killing hundreds of unarmed Vietnamese civilians, including women and children. Soldiers later justified their actions by stating they were following direct orders from their superiors. This event became a symbol of the dangers of military obedience without ethical consideration, leading to global condemnation and changes in military training regarding moral responsibility. -/- 3. The Jonestown Mass Suicide (1978) -/- The Jonestown Massacre is a chilling example of blind obedience within a cult. Jim Jones, leader of the Peoples Temple, manipulated over 900 of his followers into committing mass suicide by drinking cyanide-laced punch. Many obeyed without resistance, demonstrating how charismatic leaders can exploit blind obedience to maintain control, even to the point of self-destruction. -/- 4. The Spanish Inquisition -/- During the Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834), religious authorities ordered the persecution, torture, and execution of individuals accused of heresy. Many officials and citizens participated in these brutal acts simply because they were told it was their duty. Blind obedience to religious authority justified unimaginable cruelty in the name of faith. -/- Blind Obedience in Modern Society -/- Although history provides extreme examples, blind obedience continues to manifest in various ways today. -/- 1. In the Workplace -/- Many corporate scandals, such as the Enron financial fraud, occurred because employees blindly followed unethical directives from executives. Employees who question unethical policies may risk losing their jobs, making it difficult to resist orders from higher-ups. -/- 2. In Politics -/- Authoritarian governments thrive on blind obedience. In North Korea, citizens are forced to obey government propaganda without question, and those who dissent face severe punishment. In many cases, blind obedience to political leaders leads to oppression, censorship, and human rights violations. -/- 3. In Religion -/- Religious extremism often arises from blind obedience. Groups like ISIS and past events like the Crusades show how unquestioning faith can be manipulated to justify violence, terrorism, and oppression. While religion can promote morality, blind obedience can be dangerous when it discourages critical thinking. -/- 4. In Social Media and Misinformation -/- In the digital age, blind obedience appears in the form of misinformation and propaganda. Many people accept fake news, conspiracy theories, and political lies without fact-checking. This has led to real-world consequences, such as vaccine hesitancy, political division, and even violent riots based on false information. -/- The Dangers of Blind Obedience -/- 1. Loss of Personal Responsibility -/- Blind obedience allows individuals to shift responsibility for their actions onto authority figures. This leads to moral disengagement, where people justify harmful actions by saying they were just following orders. -/- 2. Suppression of Critical Thinking -/- When individuals do not question authority, they lose the ability to think independently. This weakens societies by allowing corrupt leaders, unethical policies, and harmful ideologies to spread unchecked. -/- 3. Violation of Human Rights -/- Many human rights violations throughout history, including genocide, slavery, and discrimination, occurred because individuals and societies accepted orders without questioning their morality. -/- The Importance of Critical Thinking -/- To prevent the dangers of blind obedience, individuals must develop critical thinking skills. This involves: -/- Questioning Authority: Instead of blindly following orders, people should ask whether commands are ethical and justified. -/- Encouraging Open Dialogue: Societies must promote free speech and debate to challenge oppressive or unethical ideas. -/- Teaching Ethical Decision-Making: Schools and workplaces should educate individuals on how to recognize and resist unethical commands. -/- Holding Leaders Accountable: Governments, corporations, and religious institutions must be held responsible for their actions, preventing the abuse of authority. -/- Conclusion -/- Blind obedience is a powerful but dangerous force. While obedience is sometimes necessary for maintaining order, unquestioning submission to authority has led to some of the greatest tragedies in human history. From the Holocaust to modern corporate scandals, the consequences of blind obedience highlight the need for critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and personal responsibility. -/- To build a just and moral society, individuals must learn to balance obedience with independent thought. Questioning authority does not mean rejecting all rules, but rather ensuring that decisions align with ethical principles. By fostering education, awareness, and critical thinking, we can prevent the dangers of blind obedience and create a world where people act not out of fear or habit, but out of reason and moral responsibility. -/- . (shrink)

The Universal Law of Balance: Preventing Poverty, Conflict, War, and the Misinterpretation of Religious Teachings -/- Introduction -/- Human civilization has long struggled with poverty, conflict, war, and social inequality, despite advancements in science, technology, and economic development. The root cause of these persistent problems is not simply a lack of resources but systemic imbalances caused by wrong decision-making—decisions based on false information, greed, corruption, short-term thinking, and rigid belief systems. -/- Among the most significant contributors to global imbalance is (...) religious misinterpretation and dogmatism. While the original teachings of religious founders often emphasized compassion, justice, and balance, their followers have frequently misinterpreted or distorted these teachings to justify violence, inequality, oppression, and resistance to progress. These flawed interpretations have created religious conflicts, economic injustices, and social divisions, violating the universal law of balance in nature—a principle that states that all systems must function in harmony to sustain stability and well-being. -/- If humanity had applied the universal law of balance in interpreting religious teachings, the world could have prevented not only poverty and war but also the destructive consequences of religious extremism and dogma. -/- The Role of Correct Information in Decision-Making and the Misinterpretation of Religious Teachings -/- A major reason why poverty, war, and inequality persist is because societies have made decisions based on false, incomplete, or manipulated information. This is especially true in religion, where followers often misinterpret sacred texts to serve their own interests. Instead of following the true wisdom of religious founders, many religious leaders and followers have: -/- 1. Used scripture to justify oppression and discrimination → Even though the original religious figures preached equality and compassion, followers have twisted their words to promote sexism, racism, and class divisions. -/- 2. Blocked scientific progress → Some religious groups have resisted new discoveries because they mistakenly believe these contradict their scriptures. -/- 3. Promoted violence in the name of religion → While most religious founders preached peace, their teachings have been misused to justify wars, crusades, and acts of terrorism. -/- 4. Created economic injustice → Some religious institutions accumulate wealth and power while their followers remain poor, violating the moral principles of their own faith. -/- 5. Suppressed education and critical thinking → Many religious movements have discouraged questioning even when evidence contradicts traditional beliefs. -/- If religious followers had correctly interpreted their holy books through the lens of balance, reason, and universal ethics, many historical conflicts and injustices could have been prevented. -/- How Misinterpretation of Religious Teachings Leads to Imbalances That Cause Poverty, Conflict, and War -/- 1. Economic Imbalance: Religious Dogma Justifies Wealth Inequality -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious followers have claimed that wealth is a sign of divine favor, allowing religious institutions and elites to accumulate extreme wealth while keeping followers poor. -/- Effect: Economic inequality leads to mass poverty and social unrest. -/- Example: The Catholic Church in medieval Europe amassed enormous wealth while peasants suffered under a feudal system, leading to revolts like the Protestant Reformation (1517). -/- True Teaching: Jesus Christ preached humility and care for the poor, yet many Christian leaders built lavish palaces and charged the poor for religious services. -/- 2. Resource Imbalance: Religious Wars Over Land and Holy Sites -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some followers believe that their religion grants them exclusive rights over certain lands, leading to violent conflicts. -/- Effect: Wars, ethnic cleansing, and mass displacement of populations. -/- Example: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is fueled by religious claims over land, causing decades of suffering. -/- True Teaching: Prophets from both Judaism and Islam emphasized justice and peace, yet their followers fight over holy sites instead of coexisting peacefully. -/- 3. Population Imbalance: Opposition to Birth Control Causes Overpopulation -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious leaders claim that contraception is against God’s will, leading to uncontrolled population growth in poor countries. -/- Effect: Overpopulation strains resources, causing poverty, unemployment, and hunger. -/- Example: The Catholic Church opposed birth control in the Philippines, contributing to extreme poverty and slum overcrowding. -/- True Teaching: Jesus and Muhammad both emphasized responsibility and caring for one’s family, which would logically include planning for sustainable family sizes. -/- 4. Educational Imbalance: Religious Suppression of Knowledge Slows Progress -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious groups believe that questioning religious texts is sinful, preventing scientific discovery. -/- Effect: Societies remain ignorant, uneducated, and technologically behind. -/- Example: The Catholic Church banned Galileo’s heliocentric model, delaying the progress of astronomy. -/- True Teaching: The Quran and the Bible both encourage seeking knowledge, but many followers have rejected modern science. -/- 5. Religious Conflicts and Wars: Justification of Violence in the Name of God -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some extremists believe that holy war is necessary to defend their faith, leading to centuries of religious violence. -/- Effect: Millions of people killed in religious conflicts throughout history. -/- Example: The Crusades (1095-1291) were wars between Christians and Muslims over the Holy Land, causing immense suffering. -/- True Teaching: Jesus and Muhammad both taught that war should only be a last resort for self-defense, not for conquest. -/- 6. Political Imbalance: Religious Control of Governments Leads to Oppression -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some believe that governments should be ruled by religious laws, leading to oppressive theocracies. -/- Effect: Suppression of freedom, human rights violations, and authoritarian rule. -/- Example: Iran’s Islamic Revolution (1979) led to a theocratic government that limits women’s rights and free speech. -/- True Teaching: The Prophet Muhammad and Moses both acted as leaders of justice, not as dictators imposing harsh religious law. -/- 7. Labor Imbalance: Religious Justification of Slavery and Exploitation -/- Flawed Interpretation: Some religious texts were misused to justify slavery and forced labor. -/- Effect: Exploitation, generational poverty, and racial oppression. -/- Example: The Atlantic slave trade was justified using Christian teachings, keeping millions in brutal conditions. -/- True Teaching: Many religious leaders, including Moses, fought against oppression, yet their followers used scripture to do the opposite. -/- How the Universal Law of Balance Could Have Prevented Religious Misinterpretation and Its Consequences -/- If humanity had applied the universal law of balance, societies would have: -/- 1. Interpreted religious texts through reason, ethics, and balance instead of blind obedience. -/- 2. Separated religious teachings from governance and law to ensure fairness for all. -/- 3. Prioritized education and scientific knowledge while respecting religious faith. -/- 4. Prevented religious wars by promoting tolerance and coexistence. -/- 5. Encouraged responsible population planning instead of strict opposition to contraception. -/- 6. Fought against economic and social inequality instead of justifying it through religion. -/- Conclusion -/- Poverty, war, and inequality are not caused by religion itself, but by the flawed interpretation of religious teachings by followers. Had humanity followed the universal law of balance, religious principles would have been applied with wisdom, reason, and fairness, creating a world with economic justice, scientific progress, and peaceful coexistence. The past cannot be changed, but the future can still be reshaped by prioritizing truth, reason, and balance. Only by rejecting dogmatic extremism and restoring balance can we create a world free from poverty, conflict, and oppression. -/- . (shrink)

How to Spot a Potentially Dangerous Future Leader -/- Leadership plays a critical role in shaping the future of societies, nations, and even the world. While great leaders bring stability, progress, and balance, dangerous leaders can lead to authoritarianism, oppression, and societal collapse. History has shown that early warning signs of destructive leadership are often ignored until it is too late. Understanding these warning signs can help prevent the rise of leaders who threaten human rights, democracy, and the well-being of (...) their people. This essay explores the key characteristics of a potentially dangerous future leader and how individuals and societies can recognize and respond to them. -/- 1. Extreme Authoritarian Traits -/- One of the most obvious signs of a dangerous leader is a strong inclination toward authoritarianism. Such individuals often seek to centralize power, dismantling institutions that limit their authority. They may show a disregard for the rule of law, manipulating or bypassing legal systems to consolidate their control. A dangerous leader is intolerant of dissent, using censorship, intimidation, or direct repression to silence critics. They often work to weaken checks and balances, eliminating opposition parties, controlling the judiciary, or suppressing the media. By doing so, they remove any obstacles to their absolute authority, creating a system that serves their personal interests rather than the public good. -/- 2. Manipulative and Deceptive Behavior -/- A potentially dangerous leader is highly skilled in deception and manipulation. They often use demagogic speech, relying on emotional appeals rather than facts to influence the masses. Fear-mongering is a common tactic, where they exaggerate threats—real or imagined—to justify their actions. Instead of taking responsibility, they shift blame to minorities, foreign nations, or political opponents, creating scapegoats to distract from their own failures. They may also engage in double standards, saying one thing in public while doing the opposite in private. This inconsistency erodes trust and fosters a culture of confusion and division. -/- 3. Dangerous Ideology and Policies -/- Another key warning sign is the promotion of divisive or extremist ideologies. Dangerous leaders thrive on division, creating an “us vs. them” mentality to justify discrimination or violence. They reject scientific reasoning and expert advice, favoring policies based on personal beliefs or populist rhetoric. This disregard for rationality can lead to disastrous consequences in areas such as healthcare, economics, and environmental policies. Additionally, they often propose radical solutions that ignore balance, promoting extreme nationalism, reckless economic policies, or aggressive military expansion. While such actions may gain short-term popularity, they often lead to long-term instability. -/- 4. Cult of Personality -/- Many dangerous leaders seek to establish a cult of personality, portraying themselves as infallible figures who are beyond criticism. They demand blind loyalty from followers, punishing those who question their decisions. Such leaders often rewrite history or distort reality to fit their narrative, creating propaganda that glorifies their achievements while erasing their failures. This cult-like following makes it difficult for people to see the leader’s flaws, as they become emotionally invested in their idealized image. In extreme cases, societies under such leaders begin to view dissent as betrayal, further deepening the leader’s grip on power. -/- 5. Disregard for Human Rights -/- A major red flag is the leader’s attitude toward human rights. Dangerous leaders often justify the suppression of freedoms in the name of national security, stability, or economic growth. They encourage violence, either through direct orders or by subtly endorsing extremist groups that act on their behalf. Journalists, activists, and opposition figures are often imprisoned or killed under their rule. The suppression of free speech and the persecution of minorities become normalized, as the leader consolidates power through fear and intimidation. -/- 6. Economic and Social Recklessness -/- While dangerous leaders may promise prosperity, their policies often prioritize short-term popularity over long-term stability. They may engage in reckless spending, unsustainable economic projects, or corruption to maintain loyalty among their supporters. Rather than promoting balance in governance, they focus on immediate gains that ultimately lead to financial crises or social unrest. Surrounding themselves with unqualified loyalists, they weaken institutions and reduce the efficiency of government operations. Over time, their failure to uphold the universal law of balance in nature leads to systemic collapse. -/- Conclusion -/- History has repeatedly shown the devastating consequences of dangerous leaders. From Adolf Hitler’s rise in Germany to authoritarian figures in modern times, societies have suffered greatly when warning signs were ignored. Recognizing these patterns early can help prevent future disasters. Education, critical thinking, and institutional safeguards are key to ensuring that power remains balanced and that leadership serves the people rather than personal ambition. By staying vigilant and promoting awareness, individuals and societies can prevent dangerous leaders from gaining power and ensure a future of stability, fairness, and progress. -/- . (shrink)

The Government System: The Foundation of Society’s Stability and Progress -/- Introduction -/- The government system is the most crucial social structure in any society, serving as the foundation for law, order, economic stability, and public welfare. A well-functioning government ensures that citizens live in a secure and prosperous environment, while a failing government leads to instability, poverty, and suffering. Throughout history, nations with strong governance have thrived, whereas those with weak or corrupt governments have struggled. This essay examines the (...) significance of government systems, emphasizing their role in law enforcement, economic development, security, public services, and crisis management, while also comparing examples of successful and failing governments worldwide. -/- The Role of government in Society -/- 1. Law and Order: Maintaining Stability and Justice -/- One of the primary responsibilities of the government is to establish and enforce laws that regulate behavior and maintain societal order. A strong legal system deters crime and ensures that justice prevails, fostering a safe and peaceful environment. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Singapore is widely regarded as one of the safest countries in the world due to its strict but fair legal system. The government enforces laws effectively, which has resulted in low crime rates and a high level of public trust in law enforcement. -/- Example of Weak Governance: In contrast, Somalia has struggled with lawlessness for decades. Due to a lack of central authority and widespread corruption, crime, terrorism, and piracy have flourished, making it one of the most dangerous places in the world. -/- 2. Economic Stability and Development -/- Governments play a crucial role in managing a nation’s economy through policies that regulate industries, control inflation, and promote sustainable growth. A well-managed economy leads to prosperity, while poor governance can result in economic collapse. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Switzerland has a highly stable economy, thanks to strong government policies, a well-regulated banking system, and a commitment to innovation. Its government ensures low unemployment, high wages, and economic resilience. -/- Example of Weak Governance: Venezuela, on the other hand, has faced economic disaster due to government mismanagement. Corrupt leadership, excessive reliance on oil revenues, and poor economic policies have led to hyperinflation, food shortages, and mass poverty. -/- 3. Protection and Security -/- A nation’s security depends on the strength of its government. Governments are responsible for maintaining military forces, police, and intelligence agencies to protect citizens from both internal and external threats. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Finland is one of the safest countries in the world due to its well-organized military and law enforcement agencies. The Finnish government prioritizes national security while upholding democratic values. -/- Example of Weak Governance: Afghanistan has faced decades of instability due to weak governance and persistent conflict. The government’s inability to maintain security has allowed terrorist groups to flourish, leading to widespread violence and displacement. -/- 4. Public Services and Infrastructure -/- Governments are responsible for providing essential services such as education, healthcare, transportation, and utilities. These services improve the quality of life and contribute to a nation’s overall development. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Norway is a global leader in social welfare, with high-quality healthcare and education systems. The government invests heavily in infrastructure, ensuring a high standard of living for its citizens. -/- Example of Weak Governance: Haiti, however, suffers from severe infrastructure deficiencies due to government corruption and neglect. The lack of investment in education, healthcare, and public utilities has led to extreme poverty and poor living conditions. -/- 5. Human Rights and Justice -/- A strong government upholds human rights, promotes equality, and ensures justice for all citizens. In democratic societies, governments protect freedom of speech, assembly, and expression, while authoritarian regimes often violate these principles. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Canada is known for its commitment to human rights and social justice. The Canadian government ensures equality through progressive policies, a fair judicial system, and protections for minorities. -/- Example of Weak Governance: North Korea, in contrast, is an authoritarian state where human rights abuses are widespread. Citizens have little personal freedom, and government control over their lives is absolute, leading to oppression and suffering. -/- 6. Political Stability and Leadership -/- Good leadership is essential for effective governance. Stable political systems enable national progress, while corruption and dictatorship often result in turmoil and suffering. -/- Example of Effective Governance: Germany, particularly under the leadership of Angela Merkel, has maintained political stability and economic strength. The German government’s transparency and efficiency have made it a model for democratic governance. -/- Example of Weak Governance: Zimbabwe, under Robert Mugabe’s rule, suffered from dictatorship, economic mismanagement, and political oppression. His government’s corruption led to hyperinflation and widespread poverty. -/- 7. Crisis Management and Public Welfare -/- Governments must be capable of handling national emergencies such as natural disasters, pandemics, and economic crises. A well-prepared government can save lives and maintain stability, while an ineffective government can worsen crises. -/- Example of Effective Governance: New Zealand’s government successfully managed the COVID-19 pandemic through decisive action, clear communication, and strong public health policies, minimizing infections and deaths. -/- Example of Weak Governance: Brazil’s inconsistent response to COVID-19 led to high infection rates and public confusion. The government’s lack of coordination resulted in severe economic and health consequences. -/- Conclusion -/- The government system is the most important social structure in the world, as it directly influences law enforcement, economic prosperity, security, public services, and crisis management. Countries with strong governance, such as Norway, Singapore, Switzerland, Canada, and Germany, provide stability, safety, and development for their citizens. In contrast, nations with weak or corrupt governments, like Venezuela, Somalia, North Korea, and Zimbabwe, suffer from poverty, violence, and instability. A well-functioning government is essential for national success, and its leadership and policies determine whether a country thrives or fails. To ensure a prosperous future, societies must strive for transparent, efficient, and just governance that prioritizes the well-being of all citizens. -/- . (shrink)

Lesbian organizations have frequently cited the concept of a Lesbian Nation as an ideal community where women could be freed from the oppression of relationships with men. The term was used in speeches made by lesbian activists beginning in the 1970s. However, lesbian militant activities have increasingly merged with the overall gay civil rights movement, so that most activists have preferred to use the term Queer Nation to refer to the movement in general.

I give an account of the structure of “oppressive double binds,” the double binds that exist in virtue of oppression. I explain how these double binds both are a product of and serve to reinforce o...

Inner speech travels under many aliases: the inner voice, verbal thought, thinking in words, internal verbalization, “talking in your head,” the “little voice in the head,” and so on. It is both a familiar element of first-person experience and a psychological phenomenon whose complex cognitive components and distributed neural bases are increasingly well understood. There is evidence that inner speech plays a variety of cognitive roles, from enabling abstract thought, to supporting metacognition, memory, and executive function. One active (...) area of controversy concerns the relation of inner speech to auditory verbal hallucinations in schizophrenia, with a common proposal being that sufferers of AVH misidentify their own inner speech as being generated by someone else. Recently, researchers have used artificial intelligence to translate the neural and neuromuscular signatures of inner speech into corresponding outer speech signals, laying the groundwork for a variety of new applications and interventions. (shrink)

In analyzing oppressive systems like racism, social theorists have articulated accounts of the dynamic interaction and mutual dependence between psychological components, such as individuals’ patterns of thought and action, and social components, such as formal institutions and informal interactions. We argue for the further inclusion of physical components, such as material artifacts and spatial environments. Drawing on socially situated and ecologically embedded approaches in the cognitive sciences, we argue that physical components of racism are not only shaped by, but (...) also shape psychological and social components of racism. Indeed, while our initial focus is on racism and racist things, we contend that our framework is also applicable to other oppressive systems, including sexism, classism, and ableism. This is because racist things are part of a broader class of oppressive things, which are material artifacts and spatial environments that are in congruence with an oppressive system. (shrink)

Indirect speech reports can be true even if they attribute to the speaker the saying of something weaker than what she in fact expressed, yet not all weakenings of what the speaker expressed yield true reports. For example, if Anna utters ‘Bob and Carla passed the exam’, we can accurately report her as having said that Carla passed the exam, but we can not accurately report her as having said that either it rains or it does not, or that (...) either Carla passed the exam or pandas are cute. This paper offers an analysis of speech reports that distinguishes weakenings of what the speaker expressed that yield true reports from weakenings that do not. According to this analysis, speech reports are not only sensitive to the informational content of what the speaker expressed, but also to the possibilities a speaker raises in making an utterance. As I argue, this analysis has significant advantages over its most promising competitors, including views based on work by Barwise and Perry : 668–691, 1981), views appealing to recent work on the notion of content parthood by Fine :199–226, 2016) and Yablo, and Richard’s : 605–616, 1998) proposal appealing to structured propositions. (shrink)

What makes it the case that an utterance constitutes an illocutionary act of a given kind? This is the central question of speech-act theory. Answers to it—i.e., theories of speech acts—have proliferated. Our main goal in this chapter is to clarify the logical space into which these different theories fit. -/- We begin, in Section 1, by dividing theories of speech acts into five families, each distinguished from the others by its account of the key ingredients in (...) illocutionary acts. Are speech acts fundamentally a matter of convention or intention? Or should we instead think of them in terms of the psychological states they express, in terms of the effects that it is their function to produce, or in terms of the norms that govern them? In Section 2, we take up the highly influential idea that speech acts can be understood in terms of their effects on a conversation’s context or “score”. Part of why this idea has been so useful is that it allows speech-act theorists from the five families to engage at a level of abstraction that elides their foundational disagreements. In Section 3, we investigate some of the motivations for the traditional distinction between propositional content and illocutionary force, and some of the ways in which this distinction has been undermined by recent work. In Section 4, we survey some of the ways in which speech-act theory has been applied to issues outside semantics and pragmatics, narrowly construed. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that, in addition to having an obligation to resist the oppression of others, people have an obligation to themselves to resist their own oppression. This obligation to oneself, I argue, is grounded in a Kantian duty of self-respect.

A widespread view in philosophy claims that inner speech is closely tied to human metacognitive capacities. This so-called format view of inner speech considers that talking to oneself allows humans to gain access to their own mental states by forming metarepresentation states through the rehearsal of inner utterances (section 2). The aim of this paper is to present two problems to this view (section 3) and offer an alternative view to the connection between inner speech and metacognition (...) (section 4). According to this alternative, inner speech (meta)cognitive functions derivate from the set of commitments we mobilize in our communicative exchanges. After presenting this commitment-based approach, I address two possible objections (section 5). (shrink)

Many theorists claim that inner speech is importantly linked to human metacognition (thinking about one's own thinking). However, their proposals all rely upon unworkable conceptions of the content and structure of inner speech episodes. The core problem is that they require inner speech episodes to have both auditory-phonological contents and propositional/semantic content. Difficulties for the views emerge when we look closely at how such contents might be integrated into one or more states or processes. The result is (...) that, if inner speech is especially valuable to metacognition, we do not currently understand why it is. The article concludes with two positive proposals for understanding the content and structure of inner speech episodes, which should serve as constraints on future accounts of the metacognitive value of inner speech. (shrink)

It is well-known that racism is encoded into the social practices and institutions of medicine. Less well-known is that racism is encoded into the material artifacts of medicine. We argue that many medical devices are not merely biased, but materialize oppression. An oppressive device exhibits a harmful bias that reflects and perpetuates unjust power relations. Using pulse oximeters and spirometers as case studies, we show how medical devices can materialize oppression along various axes of social difference, including race, gender, (...) class, and ability. Our account uses political philosophy and cognitive science to give a theoretical basis for understanding materialized oppression, explaining how artifacts encode and carry oppressive ideas from the past to the present and future. Oppressive medical devices present a moral aggregation problem. To remedy this problem, we suggest redundantly layered solutions that are coordinated to disrupt reciprocal causal connections between the attitudes, practices, and artifacts of oppressive systems. (shrink)

Articulation disorders significantly impact children's speech intelligibility, academic performance and social interactions. Traditional intervention methods primarily focus on isolated phonetic corrections, often neglecting the cognitive, sensory-motor, and social aspects of speech production. The Dynamic Interactive Multimodal Speech (DIMS) Framework presents a comprehensive psycholinguistic approach that integrates visual, auditory, and tactile-kinesthetic cues, alongside neural plasticity-based reinforcement and social-environmental integration to enhance articulation therapy. This study explores the theoretical underpinnings of multimodal speech processing and presents a case study (...) of a six-year-old child with articulation difficulties, demonstrating the effectiveness of the DIMS Framework over a 12-week intervention period. Findings indicate a 35% improvement in speech intelligibility, a 45% increase in phoneme accuracy, and enhanced speech motor coordination. Additionally, the study highlights the role of parental involvement, teacher-led reinforcement, and technology-assisted learning in promoting long-term retention and real-world application of articulation improvements. Despite its advantages, challenges such as the need for trained therapists, standardization issues and resource limitations must be addressed. Future research should explore neural mechanisms, AI-driven speech tools and scalable intervention models to optimize multimodal speech therapy. The DIMS Framework provides a transformative, evidence-based approach for improving articulation disorders in children. (shrink)

Despite the ubiquity of inner speech in our mental lives, methods for objectively assessing inner speech capacities remain underdeveloped. The most common means of assessing inner speech is to present participants with tasks requiring them to silently judge whether two words rhyme. We developed a version of this task to assess the inner speech of a population of patients with aphasia and corresponding language production deficits. As expected, patients’ performance on the silent rhyming task was severely (...) impaired relative to controls. More surprisingly, however, patients’ performance on this task did not correlate with their performance on a variety of other standard tests of overt language abilities. In particular, patients who were generally unimpaired in their abilities to overtly name objects during confrontation naming tasks, and who could reliably judge when two words spoken to them rhymed, were still severely impaired (relative to controls) at completing the silent rhyme task. This seems to suggest that inner speech was more severely impaired in these patients than outer speech. However, these results should also cause us to critically reflect on the relation between inner speech and silent rhyme judgments more generally. (shrink)

We very often discover ourselves engaged in inner speech. It seems that this kind of silent, private, speech fulfils some role in our cognition, most probably related to conscious thinking. Yet, the study of inner speech has been neglected by philosophy and psychology alike for many years. However, things seem to have changed in the last two decades. Here we review some of the most influential accounts about the phenomenology and the functions of inner speech, as (...) well as the methodological problems that affect its study. (shrink)

Some of the systems used in natural language generation (NLG), a branch of applied computational linguistics, have the capacity to create or assemble somewhat original messages adapted to new contexts. In this paper, taking Bernard Williams’ account of assertion by machines as a starting point, I argue that NLG systems meet the criteria for being speech actants to a substantial degree. They are capable of authoring original messages, and can even simulate illocutionary force and speaker meaning. Background intelligence embedded (...) in their datasets enhances these speech capacities. Although there is an open question about who is ultimately responsible for their speech, if anybody, we can settle this question by using the notion of proxy speech, in which responsibility for artificial speech acts is assigned legally or conventionally to an entity separate from the speech actant. (shrink)